The United States V. Place 462 US Case Brief

The Fourth Amendment protects persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. Police deal with search and seizure incidents on a daily basis; unfortunately, numerous mistakes are made and lawsuits result from this type of citizen interaction. One way to prevent an unnecessary lawsuit is to get a search warrant. What if that is not applicable to your situation? There are several search warrant exceptions that may be applied to most investigative incidents.

In the case, the Court did not see sufficient evidence to support the claim that the police violated the respondent’s Fourth Amendment right, prior to entering the resident. There is no evidence of threats or demands made by the police officers, that would insinuate the officer did anything wrong. Because the police in this case did not violate or threaten to violate the Fourth Amendment prior to the exigency, the Court held that the exigency did in fact justify the warrantless search. The officers re-acted upon suspicion and training (Vile, n.d.).

The case of California v. Greenwood involves police who were investigating a potential drug trafficker, Greenwood. The police, who were acting on information that suggested that Greenwood could possibly be engaged in narcotics trafficking, obtained trash that Greenwood had left on the curb in front of his home. Considering the trash included items indicative of narcotics use, the police then obtained warrants to search Greenwood’s home, discovered controlled substances during their searches, and subsequently arrested respondents on felony narcotics charges. The issue in this case was whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the warrantless search and seizure of trash left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.

The case Florida, Petitioner v. Joelis Jardines questions whether a dog sniff at the front door of a suspected grow house by a trained drug-detection dog is a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause (American Bar Association). The canine is being used as the use of surveillance in the investigation. The case begins with an unverified tip that marijuana was being grown in the home of Joelis Jardines on November 3, 2006 (American Bar Association). On December 5, 2006, around 7:00 a.m., the Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration sent a joint surveillance team to his home. Apart of the team is Detective Pedraja, whom watched the house for fifteen minutes.

In addition to that, this goes to show that anyone in an area with a possible threat to public safety can be stopped to search even if they don’t have anything to do with the crime or weren’t described as a suspect. Furthermore this case is a great example of how

Another officer arrived on the scene and they search the student’s room and found additional drugs. The student (roommate of the original student) was charged with possession of a controlled substance. Issues The issue to be determined in this case is “Did the officer 's seizure of the drugs violate Chrisman 's "reasonable expectation of privacy" guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment?” Holdings

The Weeks v United States case was the Supreme Court basis in determining to incorporate the Fourth Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause and apply the exclusionary rule in state cases. In this essay, I am going to discuss the reason why the Supreme Court determine that the exclusionary rule should apply to the state police activity. Prior to the case of Weeks v United States, the state police activity “were not limited in their conduct by the Fourth Amendment” (Ingram p.81) and the exclusionary rule of Fourth Amendments illegal search and seizure only applies to federal law enforcement officers. Basically, it means that state law enforcement officials can illegally search and seized criminal activity evidence and court don’t prohibit the use of illegally obtained evidence in the trial court.

Unspoken: Miranda; More Than Words The Fourth Amendment , “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” In Johnson v. United States (1948), officers smelled burning opium from the window of a hotel, the officers entered without warning, found the only occupant and had him persecuted. Though the man had committed the crime, he did not agree that the officers enter his hotel room or go through his belongings. Clearly this is a huge invasion of privacy and should be confronted by allowing one to know their right to decline. On that note, if there is any suspicion that narcotics are involved in a certain case there should be consequences,

This is a criminal case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that there was no probable cause to arrest Hayes. Hayes did not give consent to be taken to the police station and be detained plus fingerprint. Therefore, Hayed Fourth Amendment rights were violated and the conviction was overturned. Fact of the case: In the 1980’s there was a series of rape and burglary that happened in Punta Gorda Florida.

I, Judge Yen, find the evidence of the gift cards seized from Turner Round’s car inadmissible on the grounds of the violation of his 4th Amendment rights. Starting from the beginning, the stop that Officer Oliver Towns made of Mr. Round for a broken headlight is constitutional. Officer Towns verification of Round’s identity and vehicular history is also constitutional because it is an established police procedure. From verifying Mr. Round’s identity he discovered there was an active arrest warrant for the possession of marijuana and is allowed to arrest Mr. Round on those grounds. Although in the facts of the case, it is never explicitly stated that Mr. Round was arrested and read his Miranda rights, it is objectively clear that he is under arrest since Officer Towns placed Mr. Round in the back of

According to the Fourth Amendment, people have the right to be secure in their private property, and may only be searched with probable cause. However, in a recent case, this right was violated by the government. An Oregon citizen, with the initials of DLK, was suspected of growing marijuana in his home. The federal government used a thermal imager to scan his home, and were later given a warrant to physically search his home. However, many remain divided over whether or not this scan was constitutional, as there was no warrant at the time of the scan.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that garbage placed at the curbside is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. The warrantless search of Greenwood’s garbage bags would violate the Fourth Amendment only if Greenwood showed a subjective expectation of privacy of the garbage and society accepts it as objectively reasonable. The U.S Supreme Court argued that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy for trash on public streets where animals, children, scavengers, and the public have access to it. Criminal activity that can be seen by any member of the public cannot be reasonably expected to be ignored by the police.

Search and seizure law is actually one of the detrimental issues in the criminal justice system. Many officers are sometimes faced with constraints and are not able to work properly given that they fail to understand and distinguish between situations when search warrant are required ( Del, 2014). In incidents that have lawful arrest as well as when there is a plain view exception. In areas where consent is given by a person in authority, there is no need for the search warrant required together with the police stops and frisking a person whom they have a reasonable suspicion on of an act that is equated to a crime. Another example is when a situation is an emergency and there is a hot pursuit given the evidence may disappear before the warrant

B. WARRANTLESS AND NONCONSENSUAL BLOOD TESTS ARE PRESUMPTIVELY UNREASONABLE AND MUST BE EVALUATED BASED ON THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES Reasonableness is the touchstone of Fourth Amendment analysis. Whether a search is unreasonable "depends on all of the circumstances surrounding the search or seizure and the nature of the search or seizure itself,’” and entails “‘balancing its intrusion on the individual 's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests.’” Against this backdrop, at least one court has held that “a warrantless blood test, performed without consent, is presumptively unreasonable unless the state actors involved had probable cause and exigent circumstances sufficient to justify

41. Mapp v. Ohio (1961): The Supreme Court ruling that decided that the fourth amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures must be extended to the states. If there is no probable cause or search warrant issued legally, the evidence found unconstitutionally will be inadmissible in the courtroom and not even considered when pressing charges. The exclusionary rule, in this case, is a right that will restrict the states and not just the federal government, including the states in more of the federal rights as outlined in the Constitution.